Anti-Judaism in Luke's Roman Trial Narrative

by Ioanes Rakhmat 

Read also:

Anti-Judaism in John's Roman Trial Narrative

This is the third of four studies concerning early Christian anti-Jewish bias that colors the Roman trial narratives of the NT gospels, concentrating on Luke’s Roman trial narrative and the Acts of the Apostles.

In Luke’s Gospel, during the trial before Pilate, the Jewish authorities accused Jesus of four things: perverting (or misleading) the Jewish nation (“our nation”; to ethnos hēmōn [see also 7:5]) (23:2,14); forbidding the payment of taxes to Caesar (23:2); claiming himself to be the Messiah, a king (23:2); and inciting the people by his teaching throughout the entire land, from Galilee to Jerusalem (“to this place”) (23:5). 

Clearly, the major charge is that of misleading the nation;/1/ the other charges are the subdivisions or specific examples of this major one./2/ All these charges against Jesus are clearly political and are in keeping with one of Luke’s main emphases as appears also in the parallel accusations levelled against Paul in Acts./4/ 

The picture is thus that the Jewish leaders brought Jesus before Pilate as one they considered a revolutionary who had done harm to the Roman state by perverting his fellow countrymen and inciting them by his teachings to rebellion./4/

False Accusations Levelled against Jesus

However, the Lukan readers know that all these charges are false and baseless. Far from seeking to overthrow either Herod Antipas or Rome by activities politically motivated, Jesus’ ministry is one of proclaiming good news to the poor and giving sight to the blind (4:18-19). 

In 9:41 Jesus declares that the nation was already perverse (diestrammenē); and this condition was not a result of his activity. The truth is that he has led the people in a way displeasing to those who accuse him, and that all the people are spellbound by what they hear (19:47-48; 20:6, 19, 26, 45; 21:38; 22:2). 

Concerning the payment of taxes to Caesar, the authorities’ own spies have inquired about this and obtained an answer from Jesus himself, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (20:22-26). Indeed, Jesus is notorious for associating with tax collectors (Luke 5:27-30; 7:34; 15:1; 18:9-14). 

Although Luke’s readers do believe that Jesus is the Christ (2:26; 4:41; 9:20), a king of the Davidic line (e.g. 1:32-33; 2:4; 3:31; 18:37-38; Acts 17:7), yet Jesus has never referred to himself as a king, certainly not in the political sense in which the Jewish leadership has presented the matter to Pilate. 

To give specific examples: When Jesus is publicly appealed to as the “son of David” by a blind man outside Jericho, Jesus does not rouse the populace to arms but heals that blind man, and all the people, when they see it, praise God (18:35-43). 

When he is hailed as the “King” upon his entry into Jerusalem, Jesus receives the acclaim, not for any display of political and military prowess, but because of the miracles (peri pasōn dynameōn) he has performed in the sight of all Israel (19:37-40). 

Luke’s picture is like a two-sided coin: on the one side, Jesus is plainly innocent of the charges brought by the Jewish leaders. 

On the other side, because of their lies, Jesus’ accusers must be judged to be evil-doers because they have presented a false charge of forbidding the payment of taxes, distortingly exploited titles such as “Messiah” and “king” that indeed contain ambiguities, accused Jesus of acting as a false teacher who has led the nation astray through his teachings although actually he has not. 

Clearly, there is embedded in this picture a definite strain of Luke’s anti-Judaism. 

The Innocence of Jesus and Luke’s Purposes 

The innocence of Jesus can be seen to be one of Luke’s typical emphases, one repeatedly present in the trial and crucifixion narratives. 

A third time, Pilate said to them, “... I have found in him no ground for the sentence of death.” (Luke 23:22). A painting of William Fergusson Hole (1846-1917). Source of image: wikigallery.org/Public Domain.

Throughout Jesus’ Roman trial, Pilate three times declares that Jesus is innocent (23:4, 14-15, 22), and also three times reveals his intention to have Jesus released (23:16, 20, 22). 

Jesus of Nazareth before Herod Antipas' court in Jerusalem (Luke 23:7-15). Image painted by Duccio, c. 1310. Source of image: wikiwand.com/Public Domain.

As stated by Pilate (23:15), Herod Antipas, tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (3:1), too, found Jesus not guilty. 

Regarding Jesus, one of the two criminals who are hanged together with him clearly states, “This man has done nothing wrong.” (23:41). 

When the centurion sees the happenings all around and the way of Jesus’ facing death, he says, “Certainly this man was innocent (dikaios)”/5/ (23:47). 

The sharp contrast made between Barabbas and Jesus is intended also to stress the innocence of Jesus:/6/ Barabbas is “the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder” (23:19, 25) whereas Jesus is “the holy and righteous one, the author of life” (Acts 3:14-15). 

Luke’s emphasis on Jesus’ innocence is in harmony with Matthew’s;/7/ but Luke goes further than Matthew as he repeatedly applies the innocence motif to Paul as well in Acts./8/ 

By laying emphasis on Jesus’ and Paul’s lack of guilt before Roman rulers (Pilate and Festus), Luke clearly wants to show the political innocence of Christianity in the sight of Rome and declare that the Roman state was on the side of Christianity. 

What he is doing is presenting simultaneously both an apology for Christianity addressed to Rome (that Christians are no danger to the Roman empire)/9/ and an apology for Rome directed to Christians (that Roman rulers mean no harm to Christians)./10/

With this twofold “apology,” very likely Luke was trying to provide pastoral guidance for his own community (that represented by Theophilus), namely that to confess oneself a Christian was no crime against Roman law; and allegiance to Rome was not inconsistent with faith in Jesus Christ. 

Pilate Is Not Exculpated 

Although Jesus’ innocence was recognized by the Roman and Herodian authorities (23:4, 14-15), the chief priests, the rulers (archontes)/11/ and the people (23:13) rejected him. In response to the second of Pilate’s declarations of Jesus’ innocence/12/ (which is the result of his formal judicial investigation, anakrisis/13/) and his intention to release Jesus (23:14-16), they all shout together, “Away with this fellow! Release Barabbas for us” (23:18). 

When Pilate (in 23:20), wishing to release Jesus, addresses them again, they keep shouting, and insist that Jesus be crucified: “Crucify, crucify him!” (23:21)./14/ 

After Pilate has proclaimed for the third time that Jesus is not guilty and expressed his will to flog (paideuein, “to discipline”) him and then to free him (23:22), the people and their rulers shout even more urgently that he be crucified (23:23a). With this, Luke notes, their voices prevailed (23:23b) and Pilate gave them that which they were demanding: So Pilate gave his verdict (epekrinen) that their demand should be granted (23:24), namely, that Jesus be crucified. 

By employing the verb epikrinō, Luke does mean to describe “a formal judgment”;/15/ this word “could have the technical nuance of issuing an official sentence.”/16/ 

Among the four evangelists, only Luke does state explicitly that Pilate passed sentence, but Luke makes it plain that it actually reflects the Jewish judgment, not the Roman prefect’s: the Roman death sentence is pronounced in accordance with the demand of the Jewish leaders and the crowds (to aitēma autōn genesthai). Thus, here, Pilate is clearly pictured as the Roman prefect who finally was forced to acquiesce to the Jewish pressure to pronounce a sentence of death on Jesus. 

The trial by Pilate is concluded in 23:25 where it is noted that he [Pilate] “released the man they asked for, the one who had been put in prison for insurrection and murder, and he handed Jesus over as they wished.” 

The threefold declaration of Jesus’ innocence by Pilate and the threefold attempt on the part of the prefect at setting Jesus free contain the message noted above: that the Roman state took the side of Jesus (and Christianity), and that Christianity was no harm to the Roman state. 

The note that the Roman prefect three times declared Jesus to be innocent and tried to release him might lead one to the conclusion that Luke wants to exculpate Pilate and lay the full responsibility for the death of Jesus on Jews. 

Luke indeed places the bulk of responsibility for Jesus’ death on the Jewish side due to the false charges which the Jewish leaders have levelled against Jesus before Pilate and the Jewish insistent demand for the death sentence on Jesus. 

The Jewish leaders and the people are thus to be blamed. But Pilate is not exculpated, because he was the prefect who had the authority to inflict the sentence of death on Jesus; without him, or someone else as the Roman prefect, Jesus could not have been sentenced to death. 

Furthermore, notes elsewhere in Luke-Acts about some of Pilate’s other actions make it unlikely that Luke would have exonerated him: Luke 13:1 (about Pilate’s slaughter of the Galileans); Acts 2:23 (the Romans are designated as lawless), and Acts 4:25-28 (Pilate and the Roman Gentiles are portrayed as raging against Jesus. By the inclusion of Pilate, Herod and the Gentiles, the “coalition of darkness”./17/

The Inhabitants of Jerusalem and Their Leaders 

Luke’s anti-Jewish tone continues beyond the Roman trial account. Not only does Luke narrate that the Jewish leaders and the people succeeded in putting pressure on Pilate to pass the death sentence on Jesus; but he also relates in Luke 23:26, 33 that the Jews themselves, not the Roman soldiers, crucified Jesus: “As they led him away...” (kai hōs apēgagon auton....) (23:26); “...they crucified Jesus there....” (ekei estaurōsan auton....) (23:33). 

The “they” of 23:26, 33 is grammatically the same as the “they” of the preceding verses and it must refer to the “chief priests, the rulers and the people” of 23:13./18/

Not surprisingly, there are those who contend that Luke 23:26 is the first expression of the thought that the Jews themselves carried out the crucifixion./19/ And, beside this verse, there is also the note in Luke 24:20 that two of Jesus’ followers laid the blame on the chief priests and rulers: “And how our chief priests and rulers handed him over to be condemned to death and crucified him.” 

This thought is reiterated in Acts with references to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their leaders (2:14; 3:17; 13:27) as the crucifiers of Jesus: “This Jesus whom you crucified” (2:36); “You killed the Author of life” (apekteinate ...., 3:15); “They put him to death by hanging him on a tree” (aneilan kremasantes epi xulou, 10:39); “You crucified and killed (aneilate) by the hands of those outside the law” (2:23). 

In other passages in Acts members of the Jewish council are accused (by Peter in 4:10; by Peter and the apostles in 5:30, and by Stephen in 7:52) of having been the murderers of Jesus: “You have become his murderers” (phoneis egenesthe, 7:52); “...whom you crucified” (...hon humeis estaurōsate, 4:10); “whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree” (hon hymeis diecheirisasthe kremasantes epi xulou, 5:30). 

All these passages in Luke-Acts, with a clear voice, assert that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their leaders, members of the Sanhedrin, they themselves killed Jesus. 

The Romans’ share in the killing of Jesus is also mentioned (Acts 2:23; 3:13; 4:27; 13:28); but the greater part of the responsibility for the death of Jesus is emphatically laid on those who lived in Jerusalem and their leaders. 

In Israel’s history, the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their leaders were notorious for having the habit of persecuting, stoning and killing the prophets (e.g., Luke 13:33-34a; Acts 7:52a); Jesus was one among the prophets whom they rejected and killed (Luke 4:24; 7:16, 39; 13:31-33; 24:19-20; cf. Acts 3:22-23). 

But this prophet Jesus whom the Jerusalemites and their leaders murdered is proclaimed by his followers to be the Lord and Messiah because of his resurrection (Acts 2:31-36; see also 4:32; 5:42; 8:5; 10:36; 17:3; 18:5; 18:28). This emphasis that the rejected and executed prophet Jesus is the Messiah and Lord of Christian (Jewish or non-Jewish) communities sharpens Luke’s anti-Jewish bias. 

In fact, in Luke’s view, not only the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders but also the city itself had to be held responsible for Jesus’ death: this city will be punished; it will be destroyed (Luke 13:33-35a; 19:41-44; 21:20-24; 23:28-31). As with Matthew, Luke here seems to interpret the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE as carrying out of God’s judgment. 

God’s Punishment and Future Generations 

Luke differs from Matthew in not laying the blame and responsibility for the death of Jesus on all the subsequent generations of the Jewish people. It was only the inhabitants of Jerusalem together with their leaders who were to blame, and the punishment for their wrongdoing was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE./20/

If we place ourselves within the story world of Acts, we read, that not long after the crucifixion, when, e.g., Peter and Stephen are evangelizing the inhabitants of Jerusalem and their leaders, they can aim accusing fingers directly at them, saying “You killed the Author of life” (3:15) and “You have become his murderers” (7:52). 

However, when referring to Jesus’ condemnation during his preaching on the Sabbath day in the Antioch synagogue, Paul does not accuse his listeners of having killed Jesus; rather, he insists that “Because the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders did not recognize him or understand the words of the prophets..., they fulfilled those words by condemning him. Even though they found no cause for a sentence of death, they asked Pilate to have him killed...., they took him down from the tree and laid him in a tomb” (Acts 13:27-29). 

Paul was clearly referring to events which occurred in the past in Palestine, and , therefore, he could not point a finger at Jews living at a later time in Antioch. This strongly suggests that, for Luke, the threat of God’s punishment did not rest upon all Jews of all generations. And this viewpoint is implied in words attributed to Jesus as he hung on the cross: “Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing” (Luke 23:34; cf. Stephen’s similar petition to God in Acts 7:60). 

Because of this, the call to the Jews to repent and be baptized for their salvation was repeatedly offered by the apostles (e.g., Acts 2:37-38; 3:17-19; 8:23; 13:38-39; 20:21). 

In Acts 3:17-19 we read, that to the residents of Jerusalem and their leaders who have been previously accused of being the murderers of Jesus (3:15) the apostle Peter gives expression to his understanding of the matter and then offers an invitation for them to repent: “And now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did also your rulers. In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that the Messiah would suffer. Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out.” 

The evangelization among Jews, including the priests, in Jerusalem by Peter and other apostles is depicted as greatly successful as is shown by the multiplication of believers (Acts 2:41, 47; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1,7). 

The missionary activities of Paul and his companions among the Jews of the Diaspora and the Gentiles are said, on the one hand, to have achieved much: “A great number of both Jews and Greeks became believers” (14:1). 

But, on the other hand, Luke records that most of the Jews of the Diaspora rejected Paul and his co-workers (e.g., 13:50; 14:2, 19; 18:6; 20:3, 19); and when Paul returned to Jerusalem, the Jews in this city plotted against him (23:12-15). 

In the end of Acts, Luke, reflecting on the missionary activities toward the Jews outside Palestine, presents Paul as pessimistically warning the local leaders of the Jews in Rome, using Isaian language: “[Y]ou will indeed listen, but never understand, and you will indeed look, but never perceive. For this people’s heart has grown dull,...” (Acts 28:26-27 = Isaiah 6:9-10 [LXX] ). 

In a missionary context, this is indeed a somber picture. It is Luke’s view, however, that the gospel was to be proclaimed first to the Jews; only after their rejection of it was the gospel then offered to the Gentiles: “... first to you; since you reject it... we are now turning to the Gentiles.” (13:46; cf. 3:26; 18:6; 22:21; 23:11; 28:28). 

This change in the target of missionary activities does not stem from Luke’s intention to denigrate the Jews because of their obstinacy; rather, according to Luke’s understanding, this is in accord with the overall plan of God (hē boulē tou theou) in his dealing with the whole world (e.g., Acts 1:8; 2:23; 3:17-21; 4:27-28; 5:38-39; 9:15; 10:34-35; 11:18; 13:36ff., 47; 17:31; 20:27; 22:14-15,21; 26:22-23; cf. Luke 4:43; 13:33; 22:37; 24:7,26,44), just as the suffering and execution of Jesus by Jewish and Roman hands are to be seen as fulfilling the plan of God to make Jesus Lord and Messiah through his resurrection (Acts 2:22-36; 3:17-26; 4:27-28; 13:32-41; 17:3, 30-31; 28:23). 

Here Luke emphasizes that the suffering and death of Jesus did not contravene the plan of God but were contained within that plan. 

Conclusion 

Luke does not ignore the guilt and responsibility for Jesus’ death which are to be laid upon the Jews. It is this element which results in Luke’s anti-Jewish bias. 

However, when that bias is located where it should be, that is, within the theological framework of the universal plan of God to save humanity by the name of Jesus the Messiah (e.g., Acts 4:12), its highly negative impact is very considerably lessened. 

But, on the other hand, with this theological framework being used, Luke unfortunately and dangerously views his anti-Jewish position as originating from God himself. 

Notes 

/1/ This major charge appears with varying verbs three times: diastrephō, ‘to pervert’ or ‘to mislead’ or ‘to turn out of the way’ (23:2); anaseiō ‘to instigate’, ‘to stir up’, ‘to incite’ (23:5); apostrephō, ‘to turn a people from their allegiance to their sovereign’, ‘to pervert’ or ‘to incite to revolt.’ (23:14). 

/2/ Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke: Jesus, Authorities, Disciples (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 64, 155 n.84; Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.738; Bond, Pontius Pilate, 146. 

/3/ The charges levelled against Paul in Acts cover the following: 

a) “These people [Paul and Silas] who have been turning the world upside down have come here also,... They are all acting contrary to the decrees of the emperor, saying that there is another king named Jesus” (Acts 17:6-7); 

b) “We have, in fact, found this man [Paul] a pestilent fellow, an agitator (kinounta staseis, ‘inciting seditious movements’) among all the Jews through-out the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple...” (24:5-6); to this charge, Paul replied: “They did not find me...stirring up a crowd either in the synagogues or throughout the city” (24:12); 

c) In defense of himself against the unspecified accusations brought by the Jewish leaders, Paul said, “I have in no way committed an offense against the law of the Jews, or against the temple, or against the emperor” (25:7-8). 

/4/ Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 141; Bond, Pontius Pilate, 145 n.31. 

/5/ That the Greek word dikaios can be rendered either as “just”/“righteous” or as “innocent”/“not guilty”, see Brown’s discussion in Death of Messiah, 2.1162-1167. Concerning “innocent” as the rendering, Brown remarks (p. 1163), “Certainly it is not an indefensible rendering; and although I prefer ‘just,’ the semantic range of ‘just’ includes innocence.” 

/6/ Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 161; Bond, Pontius Pilate, 147. 

/7/ This, and the special source used by Matthew, may indicate that the reflection on Jesus’ innocence and the responsiblity it produces had begun very early before the composition of the canonical gospels. 

/8/ In Luke’s narrative, Paul underwent trials: 

a) before a Jewish council (Acts 22:30-23:10); b) before the Roman governor Felix at which time accusations were levelled by the Jewish high priest, elders and spokesmen (24:1-23); c) before Festus, the successor of Felix (25:6-12); and 

d) before both the Herodian King Agrippa and Festus (25:23-26:32). 

Just as Jesus’ innocence was stressed by the Roman and Herodian rulers, so too was Paul’s lack of guilt: Acts 23:29 (the declaration of innocence by the Commander Claudius Lysias); 25:25 (the declaration of innocence by Festus); 26:31-32 (the declaration of innocence by Festus, King Agrippa and others). 

In 28:18-19 Paul, referring back to his trials before the Jewish leaders and the Roman governors, said to the local leaders of the Jews in Rome, “When they examined me, the Romans wanted to release me, because there was no reason for the death penalty in my case. But when the Jews objected, I was compelled to appeal to the emperor” (see Acts 25:10-11). 

/9/ However, this theory about Luke’s objective in writing his two-volume work has several drawbacks. 

First, the evangelist does not suggest that his community was suffering widespread persecution or injustice at Roman hands which would necessitate such a work. 

Second, there are several negative pictures in Luke-Acts which would not be likely to commend Christianity to Rome: e.g., the evangelist openly refers to Simon as a zealot (Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13); he makes no attempt to cover up Jesus’ command to buy swords (Luke 22:35-38); nor does he try to hide the kingly aspect of Jesus’ messiahship (Luke 19:38). 

Other such passages should be noted as well: Luke 1:52; 4:18-19; 12:49, 51; Acts 5:29, 42; 21:38; 28:31. 

Furthermore, as Jacob Jervell has pointed out in Luke and the People of God. A New Look at Luke-Acts. Foreword by Nils A. Dahl (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1972) 157, 178 n.21., Luke’s conception of God, who governs history by means of miracles and mighty deeds and delivers apostles from all prisons and perils, makes it difficult to imagine that it is Luke’s desire to simply petition the Romans for favorable conditions and the opportunity to practice Christianity as religio licita for the church. 

Rather than subjecting themselves to the mercy of the Romans, Caesar and the state by means of their political apologetic, in Acts 4:21-31 in which Herod, Pilate and others opposing Jesus are referred to, Luke portrays with great clarity how, in facing the threats from their contemporary opponents, the believers can attain the right to practice their religion, namely by appealing to the God of history, asking him to act powerfully. 

/10/ This theoretical position in Lukan scholarship, however, does not appear to have no shortcoming either. 

In Luke-Acts we find no evidence for either the deprecation of Rome by Christians or an expectation of an imminent parousia which would generate a total disregard for advancing a dialogue with the enduring wordly state. 

Furthermore, if it were Luke’s purpose to depict Rome in a complimentary way, why has he included inconsequential details which only serve to show the representatives of Rome in a very poor light: e.g., the governor Felix hoping for a bribe (Acts 24:26) or Pilate’s slaughter of the Galileans (Luke 13:1) or Pilate’s unimpressive performance while putting Jesus on trial. 

/11/ The plural noun hoi archontes is the designation in the passion narrative peculiar to Luke (it appears also in 24:20); it is “an umbrella term for all or part of the chief priests, the captains of the Temple, the elders, and the scribes (see Acts 3:17; 4:5-8; 13:27-29) – in short, in the present sequence (from 22:66), members of the Sanhedrin.” (Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.790). 

/12/ The first declaration of Jesus’ innocence takes place immediately following the one and only short interchange between Pilate and Jesus. 

After hearing the accusation of Jesus’ claiming himself to be the Messiah, a king (23:2), Pilate asks him, “Are you the king of the Jews?” He answers, “You say so” (sy legeis) (23:3). After this briefest exchange, Pilate quickly says to the chief priests and the crowds, “I find nothing guilty in this man” (23:4). 

As a reaction to this Pilate’s first, abrupt proclamation of innocence, they protest by presenting the charge of Jesus’ inciting the people by his teaching (23:5). Because Pilate immediately proclaims Jesus innocent (23:4), the “You say so” of verse 3b must be interpreted by him as a negative, a denial. 

In Luke’s Roman trial narrative, the political charge of Jesus’ kingship – which is the only focus of Pilate in Mark’s Roman trial account (Luke’s source) – appears only in 23:2 and in the exchange in 23:3. The titles “King of the Jews” and “Christ” reappear at the crucifixion (23:37, 38; 23:35, 39). 

/13/ The verb anakrinein (“to judge”) (Luke 23:14b) is a technical term corresponding to the Latin cognitio referring to a formal examination by a magistrate; it is used also in Acts 4:9; 12:19; 24:8; 25:26 and 28:18. 

In Acts 24:8 the procurator Felix “investigates” (anakrinas) Paul; in Acts 25:26 the procurator Festus speaks of the “investigation” (anakrisis) of Paul that he and Agrippa II are conducting. 

/14/ By introducing the words staurou staurou auton Luke has converted Mark’s aorist imperative staurōson auton (Mark 15:13) to a more emotional present imperative and doubled the verb for emphasis, thereby intensifying the urgency of the demand of the chief priests, the leaders and the people. 

/15/ Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.853. 

/16/ Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 2.1492. The verb epekrinen is used in 2 Maccabees 4:47 to render a formal royal condemnation to death; see also 3 Maccabees 4:2 (epikritheisan). 

/17/ Kingsbury, Conflict in Luke, 62. 

/18/ Bond, Pontius Pilate, 143; Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 164; Fitzmyer, Luke X-XXIV, 2.1496. 

Brown, in Death of Messiah, 1.857-859, advances lengthy arguments to maintain the different position that the “they” in Luke 23:26 refers to Roman soldiers of 23:36, 47. 

However, to interpret the “they” of 23:26 as referring to Roman soldiers of 23:36, 47 is, according to Fitzmyer (Luke X-XXIV, 2.1496), “to miss the point of the way Luke is handling the passion narrative.” 

/19/ E.g., Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 164 (“Zo begint hier de gedachte dat de Joden Jezus hebben gedood”). 

/20/ Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 168. that has been formed in Luke 22:2-6― consisting of Satan, Judas and the chief priests as the chief opponents of Jesus― is broadened).

Anti-Judaism in Matthew's Roman Trial Narrative

by Ioanes Rakhmat

This is the second of four studies regarding anti-Jewish elements embedded in the Roman trial narratives of the NT gospels. The focus of the present study is Matthew’s Roman trial narrative.

In the Roman trial narrative of the Gospel of Matthew (27:2-26) we find three additions that Matthew inserted into his source (that is, Mark’s Roman trial account): first, Judas, the chief priests and the price of innocent blood (27:3-10); second, the dream of Pilate’s wife; and the innocent man (27:19); third, Pilate’s hand-washing, and the outcry “His blood on us and on our children” (27:24-25).[1] These three Matthean additions require some discussion because they reveal Matthew’s own perspectives with regard to the Roman trial of Jesus.

Judas, the Chief Priests and
the Price of Innocent Blood

Knowing that Jesus had been condemned by the Jewish leaders (27:1), Judas regretted (metamelētheis) his actions in helping them to take Jesus into custody and then accepting thirty pieces of silver in return as the price for Jesus (see 26:15). This led him to the attempt to return the money to the chief priests and elders, saying to them, “I sinned in having given over innocent blood” (27:3-4a). This saying reflects Judas’ sense of guilt as a result of his now viewing Jesus as innocent (athō[i]os). It also shows his attempt to shift the responsibility for any action against Jesus onto the Jewish leaders. The latter responded to this with the words “What is that to us? (ti pros hēmas;) See to it yourself” (sy opsē[i]) (27:4b), words which clearly and callously reject Judas’ attempt to transfer the responsibility. In these words, Matthew creates a hostile picture of the chief priests and the elders.

The expressions “What is that to us” and “See to it yourself” are elliptic;[2] and thus they represent a disclaimer of any concern on the part of the Jewish leaders. Matthew’s readers know that those Jewish authorities were most responsible for the death of the innocent Jesus because they themselves had sought false testimony against Jesus (26:59), had taken a decision to put Jesus to death (27:1; 26:66), and they too had given Jesus over to Pilate to be crucified (27:2,26). Yet, by their reaction to Judas, the chief priests and elders showed themselves as having no remorse, no interest and concern at all about the innocence of Jesus, the responsibility for the death of Jesus, and the sin and regret of Judas. Having no concern and interest at all for all these things, they proved themselves as the most callous men among all those who would be stained with innocent blood. Here Matthew’s antipathy toward the Jewish leaders comes to the fore clearly.

The callousness of the reaction caused Judas to throw the pieces of silver down in the Temple and then to end his life. The denouement of Judas’ life is summarized in the description: “He departed, and having gone away, he hanged himself.” (27:5b). This as the way Judas’ life ended is consistent with the words the first evangelist attributed to Jesus in Mathhew 26:24, “Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is given over! It would have been better for that one not to have been born.” For Matthew, there seems to be no absolution for the Judas who had taken part in the shedding of innocent blood. Knowing that the thirty pieces of silver were blood money, the Jewish leaders in turn tried to rid themselves of the taint of any such money by using it to purchase a potter’s field (27:7).

The Dream of Pilate’s Wife

The innocence of Jesus is affirmed again by Pilate’s wife in 27:19 where it is noted that she sends word to Pilate while he is sitting on the judgment seat (to bēma), about to render a life-or-death sentence: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man (mēden soi kai tō[i] dikaiō[i] ekeinō[i]), for today I have suffered a great deal because of a dream about him.” In Matthew’s Gospel, dreams are an unquestionable source of divine guidance (Matthew 1:20-21; 2:12, 13 and 19-20). As in the Jewish tradition, a dream can also be the means by which a truth is perceived by a Gentile.[3] The words of Pilate’s wife made known to him during the trial serve as the Roman proclamation of the innocence of Jesus[4] ― a proclamation that Matthew intends to be seen as affecting the deeds and words of Pilate in the rest of the narrative (especially in 27:23, 24). In her suffering, Pilate’s wife is sharing some of the anguish brought on by innocent blood; her suffering must be seen by Pilate as a warning lest he make a judgment against the guidance given her in the dream.

Pilate’s Hand-Washing and the Innocence of Jesus

The motif of the responsibility for Jesus’ death appears again in Matthew 27:24-25. When Pilate saw that he could do nothing against the second, sharp, more insistent outcry of the crowd for crucifixion (“Let him be crucified!”), but rather a riot was taking place, he took some water and washed off his hands before the crowd, saying, “I am innocent of this man’s blood; see to it yourselves.” (hymeis opsesthe) (27:24). Then all the people answered, “His blood on us and on our children.” (27:25).

Pilate’s hand-washing is a ritual act containing a message that he himself conveyed: that he was innocent of the blood of Jesus; that he was not responsible for the shedding of Jesus’ blood. The elliptic expression “See to it yourselves” (identical with one in 27:4) means that from the moment he uttered it onward Pilate had nothing more to do with Jesus and his fate; this is in harmony with his wife’s warning: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man.” Although Pilate would condemn Jesus to be executed, the blame and responsiblity for the death of Jesus were now to be put not on him, but rather on the crowd. This shifting of responsibility is pictured as occurring because it was not Pilate’s own will to order Jesus’ crucifixion, but rather Jesus’ death was due to the crowds’ insistence on it. Pilate acceded to the crowds’ demand because a disturbance was taking place, and, as the Roman prefect, he had to end this disturbance and maintain peace and order at all costs. For Pilate himself, Jesus was innocent.

True, in 27:24 Pilate did not declare explicitly that Jesus was innocent. It would seem logical, however, that Pilate would not have been able to say “I am innocent of this man’s blood” had he found Jesus guilty.[5] Moreover, in the light of the words of his wife, Pilate’s action and words in 27:24 are to be interpreted as an indirect or implicit recognition of Jesus’ innocence. Pilate’s words “I am innocent of this man’s blood” must be read “I am innocent of this innocent man’s blood.” Other ancient textual authorities (that is, the Koine textual witnesses) make explicit what is implicit in Pilate’s statement;[6] those textual variants have Pilate say: “I am innocent of this innocent man’s blood (athō[i]os eimi apo tou haimatos tou dikaiou toutou).” It should also be noted that earlier, in 27:23a, in response to the first outcry of the crowd and the Jewish leaders for crucifixion (27:22b, “Let him be crucified.”), Pilate threw a question at them, “Why, what evil has he done?” Despite the question form, unlike in Mark’s Gospel, here Pilate, already warned by his wife about Jesus’ innocence, indirectly recognized that Jesus had done no evil, that Jesus was innocent. This indirect recognition by Pilate of Jesus’ innocence was felt by the crowds and, because of it, they shouted all the more (perissōs ekrazon) for Jesus’ crucifixion (23b). Furthermore, other justification for the position that Jesus was recognized by Pilate as innocent can be found in the OT passage that serves as the background for Pilate’s washing ritual. (Note: in Graeco-Roman literary environment parallel materials for hand-washing as protective purification can be found as well.)[7]

The washing of hands in innocence is noted in Psalms 26:6 (“I wash my hands in innocence”) and 73:13b (“I...washed my hands in innocence”); for the phrase “in innocence” the LXX (Psalms 25:6; 72:13b) employs en athō[i]ois, thus containing the same word as that used by Pilate to declare his own innocence. The key account, however, is Deuteronomy 21:1-9 that describes the Jewish legal procedure to be followed when a dead man is found and no one knows who the murderer is. With the presupposition that the blood of the innocent victim gives rise to responsibility, the elders of the town nearest the body, witnessed by the priests, should wash their hands over the heifer whose neck has been broken and declare, “Our hands did not shed this blood” (21:7). In prayer, they shall ask God, “Do not let the guilt of innocent blood remain in the midst of your people Israel” (21:8). Pilate’s words interpret his hand-washing in the same manner as in Deuteronomy 21:7. The prayer in 21:8 makes it clear that “this blood” in 21:7 is the innocent blood. Thus, with Deuteronomy 21:8 as the background, the “this man’s blood” in Pilate’s words is to be interpreted as “this innocent man’s blood.” Furthermore, it is important to note that, while in 21:8 the elders pray that guilt not remained in the midst of God’s people Israel, Matthew in 27:24 makes Pilate say to the crowds “See to it yourselves”, thereby, as already noted, transfering the responsiblity for Jesus’ death to them.

The Outcry “His Blood on Us and on Our Children”

In response to Pilate’s words and actions, all the people (pas ho laos) said, “His blood on us and on our children.” (Matthew 27:25). The phrase “all the people” is a collective term, referring to the people of Israel as a whole, to God’s people; in most instances the noun laos in Matthew means the Jewish people ethnically.[8] By shouting these words, the people were implicitly affirming their conviction that Jesus was guilty and they were explicitly accepting the responsibility for the shedding of his blood, even if, for example, it might later be somehow proved that Jesus was innocent of the charges made against him. The Matthean phrase “his blood on us and on our children” has its background in the traditional formula of Israelite holy law indicating responsibility (and its consequences) for a transgression of the Law, a crime, or a death in the eyes of God: Leviticus 20:9,11; Deuteronomy 19:10; Joshua 2:19 (also Number 35:27; TalBab Yoma 21a); 2 Samuel 1:16; Jeremiah 26:15; 51:35; Ezekiel 18:13; Mishna Sanhedrin 4:5; and especially 2 Samuel 3:28-29 and 1 Kings 2:32-33) – thus it is very clear, that Matthean phrase is not a Jewish bloodthirsty cry or Jewish self-curse.

However, by employing the phrases “all the people said” and “on our children” (epi ta tekna hēmōn; meaning “on our descendants”) Matthew broadens and generalizes the responsibility, including any later divine pusnishment, for the shedding of Jesus’ blood, implicating all Jews even those who lived beyond his own time to the indefinite future.[9] This, for Matthew, definitely included those who underwent the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple that Matthew (in 24:21) calls the “great tribulation, such as has not been from the beginning of the world until now.” Matthew interpreted disasters that befell Jews in 70 CE as God’s punishment for their role in the shedding of the blood of Jesus, the Messiah (see 21:41; 22:7; 23:37-38; 24:2, 15; 27:51).[10] As clearly noted in the interchanges between Pilate and the crowd and the Jewish leaders in 27:17, 21-22, during the Roman trial it is Jesus not as the “King of the Jews”,[11] but as (the one who is called) the Messiah, that is, as a Jewish religious leader, who was rejected by the crowd, the chief priests and the elders ― in short, by all Jews!

Conclusion

Clearly, the Matthean Roman trial narrative contains sharply anti-Jewish elements. In the Judas episode, the Jewish leaders are depicted in a hostile manner as callous men. And Matthew 27:25 constitutes one of the passages in the passion narrative by which Matthew presents most sharply his anti-Jewish bias, directing it to all Jews, even to those who would be living in the future, beyond Matthew’s own time, and emphatically blaming them for the blood of the Messiah Jesus. This anti-Jewish tone even continues in the passages that relate events that occurred after Jesus’ death (27:62-66; 28:2-4, 11-15). It is most likely that the struggle with and the hostility toward the Pharisees of the synagogues after the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple generated this Matthean anti-Judaism. On the other hand, the Matthean Pilate is portrayed as testifying to the innocence of Jesus. Still, Matthew does not free Pilate from all blame: he was the Roman prefect; but, under the pressure of the crowd, and in order to avert riot, he abandoned his true opinion about Jesus and ordered Jesus’ crucifixion.

Notes

[1] These three episodes were composed by Matthew himself on the basis of an old, pre-Matthean popular tradition that reflected on the theme of Jesus’ innocent blood and the responsibility it generated. That this tradition existed, is shown by a parallel account in Acts 5:28 where it is noted that the high priest, representing the Sanhedrin authorities, angrily levels an accusation against the apostolic preachers: “You are determined to bring this man’s blood on us.” (Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.833).

[2] Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.642.

[3] Cf. the dream of Julius Caesar’s wife on the night before his assassination (Cassius Dio, History of Rome 44.17.1).

[4] Cf. Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.789, 806.

[5] Contrary to Bond (Pontius Pilate, 134).

[6] See H. van der Kwaak, Het Proces van Jezus: Een Vergelijkend Onderzoek van de Beschrijvingen der Evangelisten (Assen: Van Gorcum & Comp., 1969) 105.

[7] Homer (Iliad 6.266-68); Sophocles (Ajax 654-55); Herodotus (History 1.35); and Virgil (Aeneid 2.718-20). See Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.834.

[8] J. A. Fitzmyer, “Anti-Semitism and the Cry of ‘All the People’ (Mt 27:25),” Theological Studies 26 (1965) 699 [667-71].

[9] D. P. Senior, The Passion Narrative According to Matthew (BETL 39; Leuven University, 1975) 260; Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.839.

[10] Van der Kwaak, Proces van Jezus, 123-125.

[11] Unlike in the Markan Roman trial where the charge of the political kingship of Jesus predominates the whole proceedings, during the Matthean Roman trial this charge appears only once in 27:11, that is, in the one and only exchange between Pilate and Jesus: “Now Jesus stood before the governor; and the governor asked him, ‘Are you the King of the Jews?’ Jesus said, ‘You say so’ (sy legeis).”

Anti-Judaism in Mark's Roman Trial Narrative

by Ioanes Rakhmat

The question, to what extent do the gospel trial narratives represent a seedbed of Christian anti-Judaism, should be answered by examining the text of the Roman trial narratives of the NT canonical gospels themselves. With regard to the death of Jesus, do the authors of the gospels set the Roman governor Pilate totally free from blame and judge the Jewish leaders and populace as the culprits? Do all the Roman trial narratives of the canonical gospels contain sharply anti-Jewish elements? This is the first of four studies concerning elements of anti-Judaism in the Roman trial narratives of the NT gospels, focusing on the Roman trial narrative of the Gospel of Mark.

In Mark’s Gospel, throughout the Roman trial of Jesus (15:1-15) the interchange between Pilate and Jesus takes place only once, in 15:2. It is noted there that the prefect, in accordance with the Roman trial procedure, commenced his investigation with a straightforward question to the prisoner,[1] Jesus, “Are you the King of the Jews?” (pars. Matthew 27:11; Luke 23:3; John 18:33); and to this query, Jesus ambiguously answered, “You say so” (sy legeis).

Pilate’s question clearly indicates that Jesus was accused of claiming to be the “King of the Jews.” In a land under Roman control, such a claim could lead to an uprising. The title itself is formulated from Roman point of view, as is shown by the use of the term “the Jews” instead of “Israel” (cf. 15:31-32). Mark, in 15:12, has Pilate ask the crowd, “What do you wish me to do with the man whom you call the King of the Jews?” The phrase “whom you call” does not mean that the crowd and the Jewish leaders acknowledge Jesus to be their King; but rather it suggests that the Jewish leaders, representing the people, employed the title in the charge when they first brought Jesus to Pilate; it thus clarifies 15:2, namely, how Pilate got the information to ask Jesus about this title.[2] In the crucifixion scene, the chief priests along with the scribes themselves used the Jewish title for the crucified Jesus when they, having “defeated” Jesus in the Roman trial, mocked him: “Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.”(15:31-32).

The “You say so” answer is a qualified, nuanced one, indicating both true and false aspects of identifying Jesus as King; it is not a denial nor is it an unambiguous affirmative.[3] It is therefore open to Pilate to take it either as an affirmative answer or as a negative one. Because of this ambiguity, the chief priests immediately reacted by accusing Jesus again of many unspecified things (15:3), presumably in a vehement way. But to these, Jesus gave no reaction at all. Pilate therefore tried to push Jesus to answer by asking “Have you no answer?”and warning him that they had brought many charges against him (15:4). Jesus, however, as Mark notes in verse 5, gave no further reply; and this made Pilate amazed.

The silence of Jesus in the face of many other unspecified Jewish accusations denotes that, for Jesus, the only crucial matter concerning his identity to be settled was that of his kingship: in what sense he was the Messiah-King and in what sense he was not. It is, however, absolutely unlikely or useless for Jesus to clarify his messianic, kingly status before Pilate, because the Jewish leaders, Jesus’ chief accusers, had long set a plan to arrest and kill him (3:6; 11:18; 12:12; 14:1-2); moreover, in the Jewish trial which had been conducted before the Roman one occurred, they already condemned him as deserving death (14:64b); and then they gave Jesus over to Pilate (15:1b) to be tried by the prefect, and, finally, during the Roman trial they induced the populace decisively to reject him and demand his death (15:11f.).

The fact that after questioning Jesus regarding his identity in 15:2 till the end of the Roman trial (15:15) Pilate does not probe Jesus with further queries relative to the title “King of the Jews” and that the prefect still mentions the title for the second and third times during the exchanges with the Jewish populace (15:9, 12) should lead one to the conclusion that Pilate definitely viewed Jesus as one claiming to be King, and tried him accordingly. Thus, the “You say so” was interpreted by Pilate as Jesus’ affirmation of his kingly status. Pilate therefore needed further clarification no longer from Jesus concerning his own identity. Putting “the King of the Jews” on trial during the Paschal festival, however, could raise a riot among the crowd (14:2). In all likelihood, Pilate had been made well-informed concerning Jesus’ popularity with the populace (e.g., 3:7-8; 6:14-16; 6:31b; 11:18b, 32) that made the Jewish leaders dare not to seize him in public (12:12; 14:1-2). This knowledge had caused Pilate to see the necessity for conducting exchanges with the crowd in order to know of their current actual position with regard to Jesus whom once they admired but now was put on trial on the charge of insurrection, and to implicate them in his final decision. To avoid a disturbance, shrewdness in advancing tactical steps during the trial is absolutely needed; Mark indeed portrays Pilate as an astute judge throughout the trial.

After 15:5, clearly Pilate would want to know whether the crowd is for or against Jesus, and then he would endeavor to influence the crowd to stand in agreement with what he sees as necessary to maintain control of the situation. Exchanges between Pilate and the crowd occupy the remainder of the narrative (15:8-9, 11-14) which reaches its climax with Pilate’s decision to have Jesus crucified as “the King of the Jews,” a decision seemingly in accordance with the crowd’s demand (15:15, 26; cf. 15:32).

The Messiah-King of Divine, Not Human, Order

As the Roman state’s representative in the Jewish land, Pilate was of course interested only in a political messianic kingship. In this political sense, he therefore viewed Jesus as an insurrectionist who aspired to political rule over the Jews, thereby potentially undermining the Roman domination over the colonized land of Israel. The titulus on the cross (15:26) bears witness to this political evaluation of Jesus’ activities. As we shall see, Jesus, however, understood his own identity as the Messiah-King in a completely different sense. Jesus’ nuanced or ambiguous reply to Pilate indicates that Jesus knew with certainty that there was a sharp difference in the cognizance of his identity between himself and the representative of the Roman state. But in what sense he was the Messiah-King was to be defined, in the name of God, by Jesus himself, not by Pilate, nor by the Jewish leaders who were his chief opponents, nor by his disciples who were constantly depicted as not understanding Jesus’ sayings and deeds. The sharp difference in the understanding of the identity of Jesus that existed between the Roman judge and the one tried resulted in a Roman trial marked by misunderstanding throughout, and this continued even up to the crucifixion (15:18; 15:26; 15:32). In what sense was Jesus the Messiah-King? The narrative of the gospel provides Mark’s answer.

“Are You the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed?”

In the Jewish trial, when the high priest posed a query to Jesus concerning his identity, “Are you the Messiah, the Son of the Blessed one?”, Jesus answered, “I am” (Mark 14:61-62a). This answer certifies the correctness of the titles proposed by the questioner and it indicates unequivocally that Jesus accepted that he was truly the “Messiah and Son of God”― the identity which Mark introduced at the beginning of his gospel (1:1). But Jesus, wishing to define the content of his messiahship and divine sonship appropriately, immediately went on to refer to himself as “the Son of man” being “seated (in the future) at the right hand of God and coming with the clouds of heaven” (14:62b; allusions to Psalms 110:1 and Daniel 7:13). This means that his messiahship and divine sonship would be decisively manifested to the world in imminent future events, namely, after crucifixion, in Jesus’ vindication by God through his resurrection and exaltation, and then in Jesus’ carrying out of the apocalyptic role of the “Son of Man” of OT prophecies at his parousia in the end of time, which, the Markan community believed, was to happen soon: that is, exercising final judgment on all, whether to salvation (Mark 13:13b, 27) or to condemnation (8:38; 9:43-48; 14:62), and ushering in the consummated Kingdom of God (Mark 8:38-9:1; 13:24-27).[4] Thus, according to Mark, the messiahship or divine sonship of Jesus is that which could not be separated from suffering, death, resurrection, exaltation, return, final judgment and the coming of the perfect divine Kingdom in imminent future. Clearly, Jesus the Messiah and Son of God was not a would-be king of the Jewish nationalistic kingdom who would defy militarily and politically the control of the Roman state over the land of Israel.

Jesus’ Glory and Power

When Jesus speaks about “glory” (doksa) and “power” (dynamis), he is not referring to that which a worldly order bestows on a king or a Caesar; rather he is referring to the “apocalyptic glory and power” of the Father which will surround the return of the Son of Man in the end of time (8:38; 13:26; cf. 14:62). To be sure, throughout his earthly ministry, Jesus’ apocalyptic power or authority (exousia) was already exhibited and made operative, and this is an indication that, for Mark, the earthly works of Jesus were an epiphany of the glorious, apocalyptic Son of Man.[5] But, the present earthly manifestation of his power and authority was not aimed at worldly political and military gains; in actuality, his power and authority were wielded for teaching and preaching “the way of God in accordance with truth” (1:22, 27; 12:14), for commanding and casting out demons and unclean spirits (1:26-27; 9:25), for healing and curing people (5:30; 6:14b; 6:56), for forgiving sins (2:10), for raising the dead (5:30, 41-42) and for performing miracles (6:2). It is important to note that, as suggested by Mary Ann Tolbert, Mark created a plethora of “secrecy passages” (i.e., passages which contain Jesus’ injunction to keep his identity as Messiah and Son of God secret) in his gospel not in order to suggest that Jesus remained unknown and did not attract crowds, but rather in order to verify that Jesus did not seek for himself worldly renown or glory. This is true even though the spread of his fame and the increase of the multitudes attracted to him were surely inescapable, given who he was and what he did; these were not his desire but his fate.[6]

After asserting in public that he had the authority to forgive sins (2:10), namely the authority of God (cf. 2:7), Jesus immediately used this authority to heal a paralysed man (2:11-12), whose sins Jesus earlier declared to have been forgiven (2:5). This man stood up, immediately took up his mat, and left. When many saw what had been going on, they all were amazed and “glorified God,” not Jesus (2:12). Clearly, for Mark, because Jesus had acted in the authority of God, glory was therefore to be given to God himself, the source of Jesus’ power. Furthermore, in 10:35-40, Mark relates that, after Jesus’ third and most detailed prediction of his passion in Jerusalem, two of his disciples, James and John, came to him privately to ask a favor: “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory” (10:37). To them, Jesus immediately replied, “You do not know what you are asking” (10:38a), thereby warning them that their idea of Jesus’ glory differed from that which Jesus himself held. Jesus went on to explain that the glory in which they asked for a share was the one which would be manifested at the time he “drank the cup and was baptized” (10:38); that is, at the time he suffered (= “drinking the cup”) and then died (= “baptized”)[7] (14:34-36; cf. Luke 12:50). Also, Mary Ann Tolbert has found a reference to the crucifixion in Jesus’ statement to James and John that he was not able to grant their request, because to “sit at his right hand and at his left in his glory” was only “for those for whom it has been prepared” (10:40). In Tolbert’s view, this is a reference to the two bandits, who were crucified together with Jesus “one on his right and one on his left.” (15:27) Thus, Tolbert concludes, the Jesus with whom James and John asked to sit in his glory is the Jesus crucified on a cross; in other words, Jesus’ glory is Jesus’ crucifixion.[8]

Peter’s Confession: “You Are the Messiah”

When Peter confessed “You are the Messiah” (8:29b), Jesus uttered no denial of this confession, but only gave order to keep it secret. This means that he accepted this confession as correct,[9] but, of course, only insofar as it relates to his identity as revealed to the disciples throughout Mark 1:14-8:26, that is, the identity of Jesus as preacher, teacher, forgiver of sins, raiser of the dead, healer, and exorcist. Because Jesus immediately began to teach the disciples about his suffering, rejection, death and resurrection (8:31), one should conclude that Jesus, in Mark’s narrative from 8:31 onward, desires his identity as the Messiah to be understood in the sense of the suffering and rejected Messiah, who finally will be vindicated by God through his resurrection. Passion and resurrection were understood by Jesus as the dei, that is, as the “divine or scriptural necessity” (8:31; cf. 9:12, 31; 10:33-34; 14:21a; 14:35-36) which was manifested in the events, foretold in Scripture, which, in obedience to God, he had to undergo.[10] Because the Petrine confession did not include the dimension of Jesus’ passion and resurrection, it was an “insufficient” confession.[11] For Mark, then, the recognition of Jesus’ messiahship which does not include this dimension of his passion and resurrection does not fully satisfy God’s will. Such recognition is not false in itself, but it is still insufficient; for it has not yet attained its full depth and authenticity. Using Vernon K. Robbins’ words, for Mark, “the role of a suffering, wise teacher was an essential part of the role of an authentic Messiah-King.”[12]

That his messiahship incorporates the aspects of the cross and resurrection was said by Jesus “quite openly” (8:32a); but Peter and the other disciples did not understand because they still harbored an insufficient conception of Jesus’ identity, one that did not include his destiny on the cross and in the resurrection (8:32b-33; 9:9-10).[13] This insufficiency is intimated by the negative reaction of Peter (himself the representative of the disciples) to Jesus’ open teaching when it is noted that Peter took Jesus aside and began to rebuke him (8:32b). In 8:33, a messiahship which encompasses the elements of passion and resurrection is described by Jesus as a messiahship that belongs to “the things of God” as opposed to “the things of man.”

Clearly, there is nothing political or military which would endanger or undermine Roman hegemony over the land of Israel which can be found in the notion of messiahship which Jesus retained. He was not a glorious, nationalistic Messiah who aspired to gain political rule over the Jews in order to overthrow Roman control of Israel; rather he was God’s Messiah who would suffer greatly, be rejected by his own nation, killed and then vindicated. His messiahship therefore belonged to divine things, that is, to God’s order, God’s politics, not to a human order, neither Jewish nor Roman.

“Blessed Is the Kingdom of Our Father David that Is Coming”

In the triumphal entry episode (11:1-11), Mark relates that when Jesus and his disciples entered Jerusalem, the multitudes welcomed him with the shout: “Hosanna! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest!” (11:9-10; a quotation from Psalm 118:25-26). With this greeting, and with the earlier introduction of the title “son of David” for Jesus in 10:46-52 (on this passage, see below), Jesus was acknowledged as David’s descendant in whom the eschatological expectations associated with King David came to fulfillment. That here Mark is presenting Jesus as the Davidic Messiah-King, is strongly suggested also by allusions to OT messianic and kingship passages that fill the episode of the triumphal entry: e.g., allusions to 1 Samuel 8:10-11, 17 in Mark 11:2-3 (concerning the king’s prerogative to take animals); to Zechariah 9:9 (cf. Genesis 49:11) in Mark 11:7 (concerning the messiah riding a colt); to 2 Kings 9:13 in Mark 11:8 (concerning the spreading of garments before the king).[14]

However, in Mark’s view, the Davidic sonship of Jesus and his kingly status, position and authority have no connection at all with, or even surpass, David’s position and authority as the “ideal” king in the history of the Israelite national kingdom.

In the pericope on the healing of Bartimaeus (10:46-52), the identity of Jesus as the “son of David” is disclosed publicly not in military or political expressions such as those found in the writing known as Psalms of Solomon from the first-century BCE. In that work, the son of David is depicted as a “warrior” messiah-king who will place his royal authority in the service of the political and military struggle intended to crush Israel’s unrighteous Gentile enemies, purge Jerusalem from hostile nations, and vindicate Israel (chapter 17).[15] But, in the Bartimaeus pericope, the blind beggar is depicted as one who, in great faith, persistently cries out to Jesus to have mercy on him by restoring his sight: “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” (10:47; repeated in verse 48); “My teacher, let me see again.” (10:51b). Here, the royal authority which Jesus had as the son of David is wielded not to gain, in an imperial manner, political or military advantages and achievements, such as would have been necessary had he desired to found the Jewish nationalistic kingdom; his authority was used to liberate people from illness. Thus, the eschatological expectations connected with King David were fulfilled in Jesus’ healing human illness and restoring physical disabilities, not in the restoration of the greatness and glory of the Israelite nationalistic kingdom which was definitely past.

In 12:35-37 Mark has Jesus, while being in the Temple together with the scribes and the large crowd, present a conundrum in which the question is raised concerning how it is possible for the Messiah to be both the “son” of David (this being the scribes' view which Jesus espouses[16]) and the “lord” or “master” of David (this being the view Jesus derives from the inspired speech of David recorded in Psalms 110:1 [109:1 LXX]). The answer to this question is that Jesus, the Messiah, is the son of David because he is descended from David (11:9-10); by the same token, Jesus the Messiah is also the “lord” or “master” of David because Jesus is the Son of God (1:1; 1:11; 9:7; 12:6, 7) whose rights, station and authority far exceed those of David of old, given their divine, not ancestral, origin[17] (11:27-33; on this passage, see below). Being God’s Son, the superiority of Jesus over David is manifest, however, not in military or political sway and might, but in his being “seated at God’s right hand until God puts his enemies under his feet” (12:36, a quotation from Psalms 110:1); that is, in his exaltation and heavenly enthronement and in his sharing of God’s victory over the kingdom of Satan (see 3:23-24, 27), the enemy of Jesus and his disciples.[18] Again, this presupposes his crucifixion, his death as “a ransom for many,” as stated in 10:45, the most explicit statement in Mark’s Gospel about the meaning of the death of Jesus.[19]

“Who Gave You this Authority?”

The day after Jesus disrupted the commercial and monetary activities in the Royal Portico of the Jerusalem Temple (11:15-19),[20] while he was walking in the Temple, the chief priests, the scribes and the elders came to him and posed these two questions: “By what authority are you doing these things? Who gave you this authority to do them?” (11:27,28). These questions arose because of Jesus’ abusive actions against the Temple and his words which seemed intended to interpret his actions: “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’ [Isaiah 56:7]? But you have made it a den of robbers” [Jeremiah 7:11] (11:17). The Jewish leaders were asking for the source of the authority Jesus felt he had so to disrupt the established commercial activities in and around the Temple and then to quote scriptural passages which, either implicitly or explicitly, could be interpreted as opposing such activities by attempting to realign the function of the Temple.

The basis for the reaction of the Jewish leaders would have been twofold. Firstly, the activities of the merchants and money-changers were necessary if people were to be enabled to take part in the sacrificial system to obtain expiation for sin. The daily whole-offerings in the Temple were the “most important rite of the Israelite cult”; for this reason, concludes Jacob Neusner, “only someone who rejected the Torah’s explicit teaching concerning the daily whole-offering could have overturned the tables” and “no Jew of the time who deemed the temple the place where Israel atoned for sin can have understood the meaning of the action of Jesus.”[21] Thus, as David Seeley puts it, Jesus “would have been seen, not as offering a trenchant critique of Jewish religious life, but as madly assaulting one of its indispensable foundations.”[22] Secondly, the leaders of “messianic” movements in Palestine before and after the time of Jesus railed against and took action against the Romans (e.g., Psalms of Solomon 17:22) and their henchmen (such as the Herodian) and not against the Temple, which they too honored as the center of Jewish religious life.[23] Moreover, there was no tradition (in the Hebrew Bible, Pseudepigrapha, and Apocrypha) of a messiah overtly opposing the Temple.[24] As Seeley has suggested, without the stimulus of the events of 70 CE in Palestine, it would seem improbable that anyone would have imagined a Messiah violently assaulting the Temple.[25] It is also important to note that, during the period prior to the first Jewish revolt against Rome, the Jewish people strongly felt the necessity of supporting and maintaining the integrity, even the inviolability of the Temple.[26]

Jesus responded to the Jewish leaders, not by answering their questions, but by asking them this question: “I will ask you a question; answer me, and I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Did the baptism of John come from heaven, or was it of human origin?” Because this counter-question from Jesus unavoidably placed the Jewish leaders in a dilemma (11:31-32), they evasively answered, “We do not know” (11:33a). Jesus, in return, responded in a similar manner, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing these things” (11:33b). Although Jesus did not answer the Jewish leaders’question, by making the focus of his counter-question the origin of John’s baptism, Jesus was implicitly claiming that, like John’s baptism, which so many of the people seemed to have accepted as divine in origin, Jesus’ action against the Temple originated in the divine will and not in human authority of any kind. We can agree with Paul-Gerhard Klumbies that all Jesus’ words would have led to the collapse of the Jewish leaders’ challenge.[27] Even though Jesus’ actions and words could then not be taken as related to any political or military authority, those actions and words resulted in the determination of the chief priests and the scribes to keep looking for a way to kill Jesus (11:18). In the light of this, it is important to ask what was Jesus’ actual purpose in taking those actions and speaking those words in the Temple?

In trying to answer that question of Jesus’ purpose from the angle of history, at least seven opinions have been put forward. Noting Jesus’ followers, the crowd he excited and the revolutionary character of his movement, the first opinion is that Jesus was indeed attempting a direct takeover of the Temple as the religious-political-economic center of the Jewish life.[28] This opinion is challenged by Richard A. Horsley because, if Jesus were attempting such a takeover, it would mean that his “actions were naïve and abortive” and that “he would appear to have had no sense whatever of the actual power relations in the society....”[29] The second opinion is that held, for example, by Crossan: by stopping the liturgical, sacrificial, and fiscal activities in the Temple complex, Jesus intended the symbolic destruction of Judaism’s most sacred site; and Jesus did so because, as a Jewish peasant, he had come to view those sacerdotal activities as totally incompatible with the vision and program of spiritual and material egalitarianism and anti-hierarchicalism which he espoused.[30] The third opinion is that found, for example, with Richard A. Horsley. Jesus was acting as a prophet whose radical actions and words symbolized God’s imminent judgment of destruction, not just of the building, but also of the entire Temple system.[31] Fourthly, there is the opinion, as contended by E. P. Sanders, that, as a reformist prophet of apocalyptic persuasion, Jesus was announcing that the Herodian-built Temple had to be destroyed before the eschatological Temple would be given by God from heaven.[32]

Fifthly, in the opinion of Jacob Neusner, Jesus overturned the money-changers’ tables in the Temple because he was determined to eradicate the Temple system radically and establish as its replacement another rival table replete with soteriological import, that is, the Eucharist, by which atonement and expiation for sin were to be achieved in a new way; this table was to be established at the Last Supper. Neusner writes, “[O]ne table [was] overturned, another table [was] set up in place, and both for the same purpose of atonement and expiation of sin.”[33] But David Seeley finds Neusner’s interpretation to be awkward, problematic and eisegetical; furthermore, it rests upon the assumption that tables were used at the Last Supper, something not at all certain.[34] Bruce Chilton’s view seems close to that of Neusner when Chilton writes that “Jesus’ practice at meals after the [failed] occupation of the Temple [was] an attempt to establish a surrogate for the sacrifice of thanksgiving”[35] and that “In essence, Jesus made his meals into a rival altar”, “an alternative cultus.”[36]

The sixth opinion is actually the traditional view which has recently been revived, among others, by Craig Evans: Jesus’ actions arose out of his dissatisfaction and anger with corruption in the Temple priesthood, and were therefore intended to cleanse and purify the Temple by calling for an end to such corruption.[37] Similar to Evans is the view of P.M. Casey, namely, that by his actions in the Temple, Jesus was not symbolically destroying the Temple nor attacking its sacrificial system, but, espousing this sacerdotal system, he was purifying the Temple and refunctioning it as the place for prayer. Casey asserts that the practical effect of clearing out traders and money changers would be to permit the throngs of Jewish people present for Passover to pray anywhere in the Temple area; Jesus did so because there was not room for all of them in the inner courts.[38]

The seventh opinion is simply that the narrative of Jesus’ actions and words in the Temple is fictional account, composed by Mark; in actual history, there were no such actions and words as described in the narrative. As David Seeley puts it, on the one hand, a major obstacle to considering the Temple act historical is that Jesus’ actions, as they are described and without further explanation in Mark, are hard to understand,[39] and, on the other hand, the Temple act makes a great deal of sense if it is to be considered simply as a Markan composition rather than an account based on a historical event. In favor of this view, Seeley contends that the theme of the Temple is carefully woven through the last chapters of Mark where many signs of artifice can be found.[40] Robert J. Miller agrees that the Temple account is unhistorical and describes the literary method he uses in his analysis of the account by writing: “If a scene is composed entirely of themes and narrative designs essential to the gospel’s plot, the deed in that scene should be considered unhistorical.”[41] On this point, Miller is in agreement with Mack who has stated that “The temple act cannot be historical. If one deletes from the story those themes essential to the Markan plots, there is nothing left over for historical reminiscence. The anti-temple theme is clearly Markan .... The conclusion must be that the temple act is a Markan fabrication.”[42]

Of course, analyzed from the narrative point of view, the purpose of Jesus’ actions and words in the Temple is clearly stated in Mark’s Gospel. As Tolbert points out, by contrasting the proper function of the Temple with the current situation, quoting Isaiah 56:7 (“My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations”) Jesus redefined the Temple’s proper function, not in political or military, but in religious, terms. For the Markan Jesus, God’s house was not for the Jews alone but for all nations, and it was not a commercial venture, “a den of robbers” (Jeremiah 7:11), but a “house of prayer.” Just as the fig tree that offered nothing to Jesus’ hunger except leaves was symbolically cursed with death (11:12-14, 20-21), so also, without the repositioning of the function of the Temple as was desired by Jesus, the fruitless Temple that offered not a “house of prayer” but a “den of robbers” was cursed with destruction; time would run for the prayerless Temple, as it would for the fruitless fig tree. The incident in the Temple and Jesus’ repositioning of its proper function, publicly demonstrated Jesus’ jurisdiction over the center of Jewish religion. In Tolbert’s judgment, Jesus’ right to effect such a realignment shows that his power extended beyond the nationalistic boundaries of Davidic Messiah’s kingdom into the universal religious domain of priest and scribe.[43] To be sure, this interpretation can easily be dismissed “as simply reductionist, failing to take into account dimensions other than the religious”, as has been done.[44] Still, seen from the angle of the Markan Jesus, not that of the reconstructed historical Jesus, Tolbert’s interpretation is justified. Although the realignment of the function of the Temple as Jesus symbolically had demanded was truly religious in character, the Jewish leaders nevertheless decided to set a plan to kill him. This means, the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as a spiritual or religious leader, but gave Jesus to Pilate to stand trial under the charge of sedition.

“Give to the Emperor....”

To some Pharisees and some Herodians who had tried to trap him in what he said by asking him whether “it is lawful to pay taxes to the emperor, or not?”, Jesus responded, “Give to the emperor the things that are the emperor’s, and to God the things that are God’s” (12:13-17). The answer which Jesus gave merely endorsed what all Romans would have taken for granted, namely, the obligation of the Jews, as a subject people, to pay tribute. To question this obligation was seditious, and the actual refusal to pay was a declaration of revolt.[45] It is then clear that Jesus, in Mark’s presentation, was not an opponent to Caesar. In this respect, Mark presents Jesus as apolitical.[46]

Two Opposing Views of the Messiahship of Jesus

The discussions above have shown that in Mark’s Gospel Jesus is depicted as the Messiah-King, Son of God, of divine order, not of earthly order. He is the Messiah-King and Son of God who possesses the authority of God to teach and preach the true way of God, to forgive sins, to heal and cure the people, to perform miracles, to exorcise, and to raise the dead; and, most especially, he is the Messiah-King who must suffer a great deal, will be rejected by the Jewish leaders, killed by the Gentiles, and then vindicated by God through his resurrection and heavenly enthronement; with his death being a ransom for many. Jesus the Messiah-King and Son of God was not a political or military revolutionary; nor was he a would-be king of the Jewish nationalistic kingdom who would violently defy the sway and might of the Roman state that overpowered the land of Israel. In short, Jesus was truly an apolitical, religious Messiah-King who would not endanger Roman control of the Jewish people and land. Nevertheless, although the Jewish leaders rejected Jesus as a religious figure, they handed him over to Pilate as a claimant to a political Jewish kingship. Accordingly, the prefect tried Jesus as an aspirant to a political kingship in confrontation with Roman rule. This misconception about the identity of Jesus as Messiah-King coloured the entire Roman trial and continued to do so up to Jesus’ crucifixion.

For Pilate, There Was No Reason to Set Jesus Free

The misunderstanding about Jesus as a would-be political Messiah-King of the Jews meant that, for Pilate, Jesus was a possible, or even likely, leader of a rebellion. Because of this, it is difficult to see how Pilate could have found any reason to set Jesus free. It is true that Mark notes that Pilate realized that it was out of jealousy that the chief priests had handed Jesus over (15:10).[47] However, the fact that this awareness did not motivate the powerful prefect to release Jesus, indicates, again, that Pilate viewed the charge of sedition as serious indeed. During the Roman trial, besides Jesus’ nuanced answer (“You say so”) which was interpreted by Pilate as an affirmation, nothing was said or done by Jesus which could move the prefect to conclude that the accusation against Jesus was false.

At the same time, Pilate had to remember how volatile things were in Jerusalem during the Paschal celebrations; trying and condemning a Jew during those celebrations could very well have led to a riot. Because of this, he needed a way, as it were, to involve the crowd in condemning Jesus. As Mark narrates, Pilate’s opportunity came when the crowd demanded that, in keeping with the prefect’s Paschal custom, he release a prisoner; to this demand, he responded with the question, “Do you want me to release for you the King of the Jews?” (15:6-9). The question should of course not be taken at face value, for it is most unlikely that, at that point, Pilate would ever have set Jesus free. Rather, it should be seen as part of his astute maneuver to involve the crowd in his final decision. In the light of 15:10 (see the preceding paragraph), Pilate could be confident that the Jewish leaders would incite the crowd to demand the release of Barabbas, rather than Jesus. When this occurred (15:11), Pilate, wishing to implicate the Jewish populace decisively, threw out another question: “Then what do you wish me to do with the man you call the King of the Jews?” (15:12). Under the influence of the chief priests, the crowd, rejecting Jesus, quickly shouted back, “Crucify him!” (15:13). Clearly, Pilate’s strategy to definitely implicate the crowd succeeded. Prior to the (Jewish and Roman) trials, the populace were for Jesus; but now, confronted with the prefect’s question and under the Jewish leaders’ control, they took the side against Jesus, demanding his death.

Pilate’s last question to the crowd in Mark 15:14 (“Why, what evil has he done?”) can easily be seen as heavily ironic, because it tends to place the prefect in the position more open to Jesus’ innocence than the crowd.[48] However, the “Why, what evil has he done?” is not an affirmative Roman statement of Jesus’ innocence; rather, it is an exploratory question (ti gar epoiēsen kakon;), posed in order to know how the crowd perceived and evaluated Jesus: whether he was a good man or a bad man. In C.H. Dodd’s opinion, it “is not a verdict, but an expostulation.”[49] Therefore, it is important to pay attention to the reaction of the crowd to this question. In fact, the crowd’s reaction made it much easier for Pilate to make the decision to hand Jesus over (paradidōmi) to be crucified, for the crowd shouted even more strongly, “Crucify him!” (15:14b). Here again, they determinedly rejected Jesus, demanding his death. For the crowd, being under the control of the Jewish leaders, there was no need to reflect on the morality of Jesus, and actually it was very unlikely for them to do that. The crowd’s rejection is not an anti-Jewish note; it is part of the general Christological theme of the abandoned Messiah that runs through Mark’s passion narrative.[50] The populace abandoned Messiah-Jesus and thereby were implicated in the sending Jesus over to be crucified; this was in keeping with Pilate’s overall strategy in handling Jesus’ case at Passover. And this development then made it much easier for Pilate to realize his “desire to satisfy the crowd” by releasing Barabbas and, after “flogging” (phragellōsas) Jesus, to send him over to be crucified (15:15).[51] The depiction of Pilate as wishing to satisfy the crowd is, on the one hand, not different from the portrayal of Pilate in Josephus’ writings, especially in the accounts concerning the iconic standards (Jewish War 2.169-174; Antiquities 18.55-59): there also Pilate acceded to the demand of the populace, regardless of his own wishes. On the other hand, in the Roman trial of Jesus, Pilate could comply with the populace’s insistence because it was in complete agreement with his own will.

Conclusion

It can be stated that Mark clearly lays primary guilt for Jesus’ death upon the Jewish leadership. In the Jewish trial, they all condemned Jesus as deserving death (14:64); and then they sent Jesus over to Pilate to be tried as a rebellious figure (15:1); in the Roman trial they brought accusations against Jesus; they stirred up the crowd so that they demanded Jesus to be crucified. But Pilate is not exonerated; he played a vital part in the chain of events leading to the crucifixion: Judas gave Jesus over (Mark 14:42; see also 3:19) to the Jewish authorities; the Jewish authorities gave Jesus over (15:1) to Pilate; and then Pilate gave Jesus over (15:15b) to be crucified. In this chain, all share in bringing Jesus to the cross. In Mark’s theological vantage point, not only was Jesus deserted by his closest supporters but the whole political world of first-century Palestine, both Jewish and Roman, sided against him: the Jewish leadership took him into custody and Pilate condemned him to be crucified.[52] The Markan Jesus received just treatment from no one in authority. Still, it must be emphasized that there is no sweeping anti-Judaism to be found in Mark’s Roman trial narrative.[53]

Notes

[1] A. N. Sherwin-White, “The Trial of Christ” in History and Chronology in the New Testament (Theological Collections 6; London: SPCK, 1965) 105 [97-116].

[2] Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.824.

[3] Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.720, 729-30.

[4] Jack Dean Kingsbury, The Christology of Mark’s Gospel (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1983) 168-176; Douglas R. A. Hare, The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) 207-211, 230; J. R. Donahue, Are You the Christ? The Trial Narrative in the Gospel of Mark (SBLDS, 10; Missoula, MT: SBL, 1973) 149, 171, 177-81.

[5] Donahue, Are You the Christ?, 182, 184-85.

[6] Mary Ann Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel: Mark’s World in Literary-Historical Perspective (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) 227-28.

[7] James D.G. Dunn, Unity and Diversity in the New Testament: An Inquiry into the Character of Earliest Christianity (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977) 158-59, 210, 319-20; cf. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 210, 215, 240; Herman C. Waetjen, A Reordering of Power: A Socio-Political Reading of Mark’s Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1989) xii, 68 n.8.

[8] Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 31-32.

[9] For an ingenious discussion concerning the correctness or the incorrectness of this Petrine confession, see Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 92ff.,147ff.; cf. Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 201; Waetjen, A Reordering of Power, 221; Adela Yarbro Collins, The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings of Mark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 63.

[10] Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 64ff.

[11] Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 95, 102, 148; cf. Paul J. Achtemeier, “Mark as Interpreter of the Jesus Traditions”, Interpretation 32/4 (1978) 348 [339-52].

[12] Vernon K. Robbins, Jesus the Teacher: A Socio-Rhetorical Interpretation of Mark (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992 [1984]) 190.

[13] For a different explanation of the disciples’ ignorance about this Jesus’ open saying, see Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 63ff.

[14] Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 107; Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 248.

[15] In Psalms of Solomon 17:21-24 the “son of David” as the messiah-king (17:32) is pictured as one who will rule over Israel, shatter unrighteous rulers, purge Jerusalem from the nations that trample (her) in destruction, destroy the arrogance of the sinner as a potter’s vessels, and with a rod of iron shatter all their substance. See the selected passages of Psalms of Solomon in Marinus de Jonge, “The Psalms of Solomon” in Marinus de Jonge, ed., Outside of the Old Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985) 159-177.

[16] Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 109.

[17] Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 249; Kingsbury, Christology of Mark’s Gospel, 112f.; idem, “The ‘Divine Man’ as the Key to Mark’s Christology―The End of an Era?”, Interpretation 35/3 (1981) 255 [243-257].

[18] Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 70f.

[19] Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 68.

[20] The determination of the location of Jesus’ Temple action as in the Royal Portico, is generally accepted by scholars; see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief 63 B.C.E. – 66 C.E. (London/Philadelphia: SCM Press/Trinity Press International, 1992) 68.

[21] Jacob Neusner, “Money-Changers in the Temple: The Mishnah’s Explanation”, New Testament Studies 35/2 (1989) 288-90 [287-290]; idem, “The Absoluteness of Christianity and the Uniqueness of Judaism: Why Salvation Is Not of the Jews”, Interpretation 43/1 (1989) 24-25 [18-31]; see also E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM Press; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985) 61-76; idem, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 77-92.

[22] David Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55/2 (1993) 265 [263-283].

[23] Richard A. Horsley & John S. Hanson, Bandits, Prophets and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International, 1999 [19851) 88-134; Burton L. Mack, A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1991 [19881]) 52, 282.

[24] David Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act Revisited: A Response to P. M. Casey”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 62/1 (2000) 61 [55-63]; idem, “Jesus’ Temple Act”, 276 [263-283]; see also the literature cited there.

[25] Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act”, 273.

[26] For detail, see Marcus J. Borg, Conflict, Holiness, and Politics in the Teachings of Jesus (Studies in the Bible and Early Christianity 5; New York/Toronto: Mellen, 1984) 38f., 55, 163-199.

[27] Paul-Gerhard Klumbies, Der Mythos bei Markus (Berlin/New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2001) 248.

[28] See in particular, S.G.F. Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots: A Study of the Political Factor in Primitive Christianity (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1967) 332-334.

[29] Richard A. Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993 [19871]) 298.

[30] Crossan, Historical Jesus, 303-53; esp. 332ff., 355, 360; Jesus, 133-36; Who Killed Jesus?, 65.

[31] Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 300.

[32] Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 61-76, 363-69. But Sanders cannot find a tradition linking the Temple’s destruction and its restoration. For a good rebuttal of Sanders’ opinion on the basis of literary evidence, see Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 289ff.

[33] Jacob Neusner, “Money-Changers in the Temple”, 290; idem, “The Absoluteness of Christianity”, 26.

[34] Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act”, 265 n.11.

[35] Bruce Chilton, A Feast of Meanings. Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles (Leiden, etc.: Brill, 1994) 74.

[36] Bruce Chilton, “The Trial of Jesus Reconsidered” in Bruce Chilton and Craig A. Evans, eds., Jesus in Context: Temple, Purity, and Restoration (AGJU 39; Leiden, etc.: Brill, 1997) 494f. [481-500]. This article has been republished under the title “The So-Called Trial before the Sanhedrin” in Forum, New Series 1,1: On the Passion Narratives (Santa Rosa, CA: Polebridge Press, 1998) 163-180.

[37] Craig A. Evans, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple and Evidence of Corruption in the First-Century Temple,” Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (SBLASP 28; ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 522-39; idem, “Jesus’ Action in the Temple: Cleansing or Portent of Destruction?” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 51 (1989) 237-70.

[38] P.M. Casey, “Culture and Historicity: The Cleansing of the Temple”, Catholic Biblical Quarterly 59/2 (1997) 312, 331-32 [306-332].

[39] Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act Revisited”, 56.

[40] Seeley, “Jesus’ Temple Act”, 271ff.

[41] Robert J. Miller, “Historical Method and the Deeds of Jesus: The Test Case of the Temple Demonstration”, Forum 8 (1992) 22 (5-30); see also idem, “The (A)historicity of Jesus’ Temple Demonstration: A Test Case in Methodology”, Society of Biblical Literature 1991 Seminar Papers (SBLASP 30; ed. D. J. Lull; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991) 235-252.

[42] Mack, A Myth of Innocence, 292.

[43] Tolbert, Sowing the Gospel, 192f., 249; cf. C. A. Evans, “From ‘House of Prayer’ To ‘Cave of Robbers’: Jesus’ Prophetic Criticism of the Temple Establishment” in Evans & Shemaryahu Talmon (eds.), The Quest for Context and Meaning: Studies in Biblical Intertextuality in Honor of James A. Sanders (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 439 ff. [417-442].

[44] Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 297.

[45] Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, 224, 271.

[46] Collins, Beginning of the Gospel, 36.

[47] In Greek: eginōsken gar hoti dia phthonon (“for he realized that it was out envy and zeal....”). The word phthonos has two meanings: envy and zeal. The chief priests were envious of Jesus’ popularity with the people, and they were zealous for the law violated by his threats against the Temple and his blasphemy. See Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.803.

[48] Cf. Bond, Pontius Pilate, 115; Cf. Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.825.

[49] C.H. Dodd, Historical Tradition in the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963) 99.

[50] Bond, Pontius Pilate, 111 n. 79.

[51] Brown notes that in Mark 15:15 the Greek to hikanon poiēsai (“to do enough”) is a Latinism equivalent to satisfacere (“to satisfy”); and the Greek phragelloō is another Latinism equivalent to flagellare, “to flog”. Thus he concludes that in this verse one finds “a deliberate imitation of Latin style to supply atmosphere for the Roman governor’s legal decision.” (Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.850).

[52] Bond, Pontius Pilate, 117.

[53] Brown, Death of Messiah, 1.387.